Fiona Mactaggart: In tackling the difficulties that some areas of the NHS have experienced with their finances, innovative programmes—such as the one in our accident and emergency department to help older people—are often the first to go, rather than traditional programmes. What can my right hon. Friend do from the centre to encourage innovative programmes, which tackle health inequalities and provide improved access to services, and to ensure that they are not the first out under the last-in, first-out programmes that sometimes seem to happen when dealing with health budgets?

David Taylor: The Government have done a good deal to tackle the Cinderella status of mental health within the NHS, but there remain difficulties with access to psychological therapies such as cognitive behavioural therapy where waiting times exceed 12 months in 90 per cent. of primary care trusts. Can the Minister please act to ensure that such talking therapies are made available to all who need them and not just to those whose employment prospects will be improved and, in particular, to widen access to marginalised groups such as children, adults in hospital or in prison and black and minority ethnic communities?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Part of the important work that is being done in the pathways to work pilots is making that connection with employers. There is a lot that employers can do not only to break down some of the stigma and discrimination that there is against people who have mental health problems returning to work and remaining in work, but to support them when they have those difficulties. Again, the demonstration sites, linking with the pathways to work project, show a way in which we can build that in to the services that we provide more widely. She is absolutely right that, as I have said, there are other health care professionals who, with a little extra training, can provide some of these services extremely effectively.

John Baron: Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), the fact remains that maternity services in Macclesfield, like those in Salford and Bury, have not been selected to become centres of excellence in the "Making it Better" reconfiguration across the north-west. It has not escaped public notice that some Ministers are trying to have it both ways by pushing for service redesign at a national level while opposing closures that affect their constituencies. Is not the reason for that embarrassing inconsistency the fact that those reconfigurations take place in the absence of an evidence-based model of safe and accessible maternity care? Will the Minister respond to our call for the Government to engage in a national debate about such a model, so that much-loved local services do not face closure without good reason?

Rosie Winterton: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that people who make decisions on the organisation of local NHS services consider what is the best care for patients in the light of the best value for money. We have produced national guidelines and a national plan for maternity services. There is a well-established process for service changes, which naturally includes hon. Members expressing views on behalf of their constituents. In the case of maternity services in Greater Manchester, a final decision has not been made, but hon. Members are free to express their views and those of their constituents.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
	No. 71, in clause 17, page 14, line 44, at end insert—
	'(1A) For the purpose of subsection 1, a person would not be disqualified on the grounds of failing to take medication presented by such persons as the Secretary of State may by regulation define.'.
	No. 98, in schedule 2, page 54, line 12, at end insert—
	'( ) for a person to be treated as having a limited capability for work where it has been decided that he does not have a limited capability for work but he is appealing against that decision.'.
	Government amendment No. 18
	No. 99, in schedule 2, page 55, line 39, at end insert—
	'( ) for a person to be treated as having a limited capability for work-related activity where it has been decided that he does not have a limited capability for work-related activity but he is appealing against that decision.'.
	Government amendments Nos. 26 and 47.

Jeremy Hunt: In a way that he may not have intended, my right hon. Friend has touched on a point that I was about to make. People are worried that the arbitrary nature of the judgments involved may mean that the point at which people qualify for benefit is set at a level that will help the Government reach their targets, and that it is not based on objective medical assessments. I was a member of the Committee considering the Bill, and I do not believe that that is the Government's intention, but that concern is widespread. The credibility of the system is extremely important, and the new clause would allow an objective assessment to be made of whether it was working as intended. It would commit the Government to adopting a process of continuous improvement that would allow the system to be adapted so that it could fulfil its intended function.
	The concerns that I have set out are exacerbated by the fact that, according to a back-of-the-envelope calculation carried out in Committee, the amount of money per head in the pathways roll-out appears to be more than 40 per cent. less than that allocated to the pathways pilots. The resources available in the roll-out will therefore be nothing like what was available in the pilots, so will the Minister reassure us that the assessments will not be driven by financial considerations, and that the PCA will be adapted and improved to take account of the many valid concerns that have been expressed as a result of the failings of the current system?
	A simple way for the Minister to give the House those assurances would be for him to accept the new clause. It merely requires the ODI to publish a report, following proper consultation with outside bodies, on how well the assessment for limited capability for work is going. That would not be an onerous commitment and it would cost no money, but it would help address disability organisations' many concerns about the operation of the current PCA. It would also put in place a mechanism to ensure that the PCA would develop, change and adapt to meet future concerns that we cannot predict now.
	In conclusion, there is no perfect assessment process, but the new clause would at least allow some light to shine on the more opaque corners of the new PCA. In doing so, it would not just achieve the Government's intentions, but carry the confidence of the wider public.

Tim Boswell: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. There are issues of interaction where a physical condition gives rises to a mental condition, or a mental condition is accompanied by a physical condition. Frankly, the test of whether things work in terms of assessment should be whether the combined effect of the problems, seen over a period of time and not at one point, when the person happens to be having a good day, shows whether the person is able to operate effectively in work, whether they need support and if so, the nature of the support that they need to get back into work. Those are sensitive issues. Hon. Members have already said that this is not a precise science. We will not get things exactly right in every case. Doctors, even, can have an off-day. However, we need to assure ourselves that the system is going to work better.
	On the assessment process, I have a structural concern, which has been touched on, but which I would like to emphasise, in relation to any suggestion—in fairness, Ministers have not suggested this—of moving away from a series of strict criteria. Members with an educational background, including the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), who just intervened on me, will be familiar with the distinction between a norm-referenced exam system and a criterion-referenced exam system. At the moment, we have the latter, at least in principle, and that is what is proposed in the personal capability assessment. However, I can imagine circumstance—Ministers might say that they are inconceivable—in which a future Minister, under financial or even political pressure, might wish to say, "We will introduce a norm. We are not going to have, by definition, more than 1.5 million people on employment and support allowance," and the tests will, in effect, be geared to deliver that result.

Tim Boswell: I see the hon. Gentleman who moved the new clause nodding in acceptance of my concerns. It is important that Ministers put on the record that what I have set out will not arise.
	My concluding concerns relate to the involvement of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights. I do not want to go on about this or claim any particular virtues, but members of the Standing Committee will have heard me express, ad nauseam, my concern about human rights issues. I happen to think that it is rather important that such concerns are entertained on this side of the House as well as in perhaps more conventional or traditional quarters. It is important that those concerns are taken into account in our consideration of the Bill and its consideration in another place, and in all the regulations and the operation of the Bill.
	In that spirit—I touch on this briefly—I tabled new clause 1, which was not fortunate enough to be called for debate, although somewhat to my surprise, because it was not directly prompted by the organisation, it attracted the support of the Disability Rights Commission. It sought to set out some general principles—principles that the Minister himself acknowledged were broadly accepted in Committee—and to try to give them some flesh. I think that they could be summarised briefly without it being an abuse of the House. Decisions should be taken in the interests of a client. They should involve at least no detriment to either the health or finances of the client. The action proposed should be proportionate, and at all times the client should be involved—

Tim Boswell: That was exactly why I was moving on from my point with the closing words that the client should be involved in the process.
	The process begins with the assessment procedure, which is the precise subject of new clause 3. I am worried that somewhere along the line we might fall at the human rights hurdle. I do not think that Ministers want that or that there is an agenda for it, but we must ensure that it does not occur. Whether that should be achieved by the new clause that I gaily put down, another measure or an understanding by Ministers, it is important that the matter is addressed, if only in terms of the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore)—I do not often see eye to eye with him—in the past hour when he spoke to his ten-minute Bill. He expressed his concerns about the apparent exclusion of private sector contractors, of whom there will be a lot under the Bill, from the need to discharge their duties under the Human Rights Act 1998. I know that the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform gave a reassurance in Committee that that would not happen and that it would make no difference whether the pathways contractor was part of Jobcentre Plus or a private contractor. It would be nice if he would give that assurance again. The Minister has also accepted that the new disability equality duty runs through the whole of his Department and that there is no question of any of the public departments opting out.

Chris Bryant: I agree with the first half of the hon. Gentleman's comments, but disagree with the second half. It is clearly true, as I said earlier, that the current system has fallen foul of incapacity benefit users—those who are in receipt of it—and of the wider community, but that is why we need to get the system right now, not review it so frequently as to further undermine confidence in it because it changes year after year. Of course we need a system of review, but, although I sympathise with the thrust of the new clause, I disagree with the idea of having an annual review, because such a constant process of change would not allow people to regain confidence in the system. I also believe, as the right hon. Member for Wokingham suggested earlier, that the review process should not be subcontracted to some other body but undertaken by a Select Committee because the greatest expertise resides there.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman makes his point but I would prefer a review every five years because when reviews take place and there is no change, people tend to question the point of reviewing.

Lynne Jones: New clause 3 does not call for an annual review but an annual report, which is different.

Adam Afriyie: There is no doubt that hon. Members of all parties generally welcome the Bill, which acknowledges that viewing the capacity to work positively is an important step forward. That focus is crucial if we are to tackle some of the long-term problems that we are experiencing with incapacity benefit. The Bill is perhaps also an acknowledgement of the fact that the existing policy was not effective in removing people from long-term incapacity benefit. I cannot remember the exact figures, but the numbers increased hugely for people who had been on incapacity benefit for more than five years. The Bill is therefore an acknowledgement of a problem and of a failure of existing policy.
	The personal capability assessment is currently the only access point to the new employment and support allowance because existing claimants on incapacity benefit will not be transferred. It is therefore vital that the PCA is useful, effective and does not cause problems but leads to their resolution by identifying people's capabilities to work rather than their overall incapacities.
	However, too often, laws and regulations are made in the hope of achieving an outcome. As a member of the Science and Technology Committee with a background in business, I believe in evidence-based policy making. That is why we must acknowledge that laws and regulations—the PCA is largely a regulation—often have unintended consequences. In some cases, regulations have the opposite effect to that desired. Evidence is therefore vital and that produced so far is rather dubious. Only a small sample of assessments was made in reviewing the PCA—it ran only into the hundreds, if I am correct—and some conditions were missing. For example, nobody in the sample had disabilities on the autistic spectrum. I urge the Minister to consider new clause 3 carefully because if there is no evidence for effectively establishing the new PCA, surely it is important to produce a report to show its effectiveness, at least for the first few years until we are confident that people's lives are not being destroyed due to insufficient data.
	My key concern is about people who face a mental health challenge. If people who suffer from depression, are in remission from it or suffer the other disorders and challenges that those with mental health problems encounter, are confronted with a PCA in which they are not confident, that could trigger another episode of their condition. So we need to be very careful about the PCA, and one way of ensuring that it produces the intended consequence of identifying people's capability for work is to report on it. There is a fundamental difference between a report on the outcomes of a policy and a review of that policy. New clause 3 calls for a report on the outcomes, not a review.
	If the Secretary of State and the Minister are confident that the new PCA will work, why do they oppose disclosure in the form of what I imagine would be a fairly straightforward annual report? Why would they feel the need to hide anything, or cover it up? Will the Minister take responsibility for any harm done to those with a mental health condition if the PCA is not effective or if it is not implemented correctly? From what I can see from the lack of data and evidence, and from the performance of the previous capability assessments in which 50 per cent. of appeals were upheld, the present PCA is based on a lot of hope and aspiration but very little fact or evidence. We have an opportunity here, and if the Minister will not accept new clause 3 in its present form, I urge him at least to give a strong indication that he will introduce proposals for some kind of report on the personal capability assessment element of the Bill.

Jim Murphy: I was not aware of that. I had been labouring under the illusion that those fine members of Her Majesty's constabulary did not listen to the detail of our conversations, and that they perhaps participated in sudoku or some other leisure pursuit in Committee. However, it is enlightening to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. The success of our discussions was at least in part down to the contributions made by him and his Front-Bench colleagues, as well as by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander), by the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) in a passing visit and by the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire)— [ Interruption.] I want to make some progress, but I must not forget the contributions made by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson) and those from many other airts and pairts of Great Britain.
	I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) in this debate because he played an important part in our deliberations in Committee and has rightly said that our approach to welfare reform should be evidence based. He is also right to say that incapacity benefit in its present form has not kept pace with the changing nature of disability, given the emergence of mental health conditions—particularly fluctuating mental health conditions—over the past two decades, and the changing gender make-up of the present IB customer base. About 40 per cent. of those on IB at the moment are women. We know that there has been a transformation in the sense that IB had previously been considered a legacy of our industrial heritage, but that is no longer entirely the case.
	It has not kept pace with the changing nature of society and the legal rights that disabled people now enjoy in the United Kingdom. It has not kept pace with attitudes to those with learning difficulties, many of whom, it is now recognised, can play a productive role in the labour market. Progressive employers are now seeking ways to involve many people who have a fluctuating mental health condition or learning disability in active employment.
	The benefits system has not kept pace with such social changes as it should have done. Notwithstanding that, progress has been made. If we can continue as we did in Committee, without the traditional partisanship, it would be helpful.
	In passing, the number of people on incapacity benefit has decreased significantly recently—by about 54,000 in the past year. The most recent figure for the number of people on incapacity benefit is, I think, 2.69 million. If we had continued the trajectory as it was in 1996-97, however, that figure would be 4 million. Of course, much more needs to be done to support more of those 2.6 million to get off incapacity benefit.
	I also want to allay the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) about the Government setting an arbitrary upper target for the number of people on incapacity benefit. He knows that that is not what the Bill is about, and it would be reactionary and wrong for this or any alternative Government to set an upper limit for the IB caseload. We have set a target of reducing the number by 1 million, but we are not seeking to achieve that through a legislative cap; we are providing the support to enable that as a public policy intent. That is what underpins the Bill.
	Let me comment briefly on the new Government amendments. As we have said, we want everyone to have the opportunity to work. That is why we have based entitlement to the support group on the most severe disability, which would make it unreasonable to require the person to engage in work-related activity. That underpins Government amendment No. 18. In relation to clause 9, the 46 descriptors in draft regulations, which have been provided in the Library of the House, reflect such a severity of disability.

Jim Murphy: The hon. Gentleman has helped with our deliberations on the Bill at all stages and he has offered another reasonable suggestion. Subject to the caveat that there are no issues of commercial confidentiality—I cannot see how it would apply in this matter—we would be able to provide that information to the House and the relevant Select Committees. I hope that that also reassures the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) about micro-assessment and the ongoing day-to-day basis of how the revised PCA operates over the first two years. It is important that we learn about the changing outcomes of the appeal processes and assess whether we have got that right in the first two years. That provides an additional external check on how we manage the operation and effectiveness of the new PCA. After that time, we will still be subject to the usual channels of parliamentary scrutiny through Select Committees, the Public Accounts Committee and parliamentary questions.
	For all those reasons, we do not accept new clause 3 as we do not believe that it is a desirable way of auditing the application of the PCA. In addition to those protections and the independent and crucial parliamentary challenge that I have mentioned, the Government would reflect further at the end of the three-year period. Having gathered all the evidence and having learned from consultative groups and the observation of Select Committees about the nature of the appeal mechanisms, we would then consider the most effective way of continuing to keep on top of the issues with an active review and independent assessment of the continuing role of the PCA beyond 2010. I hope that that reassures the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey enough to tempt him to withdraw the motion, but I am not sure that it will.
	I should like to move on to deal with issues raised by my hon. Friends, particularly on amendment No. 71. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood has provided the Government with another opportunity to put our intentions on the record. We intend that the powers in clause 17 will be used only if a customer purposely and without good cause is found to have a limited capability for work, resulting from their own misconduct, failure to follow medical advice or failure to observe prescribed rules of behaviour. That includes misconduct leading to injury or a refusal to follow standard medical advice recommended by a doctor or hospital that could improve their condition and allow them to return to work.
	As stated in Committee, the purpose of clause 17 is to safeguard the benefit system against abuse where a customer deliberately decides not to follow standard medical advice in order to continue to receive benefit inappropriately. The clause is not an attempt in any sense to force people into accepting medical treatment or medication that they do not wish to take for genuine reasons—for example, on account of unacceptable side effects of drugs or fear of surgery. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood on the issues that he raised.
	Amendments Nos. 98 and 99 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West who illuminated the Committee with observations on his experience in Glasgow. A league table of incapacity benefit has been published, so we know that the city of Glasgow has the constituencies with the highest level and the second highest level of incapacity benefit customers in the whole of the UK. Without wishing to enter the whole debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), the changing nature of incapacity benefit is evident in that more women are now claiming it. But it is still the case that if one were to publish a list of the 100 parliamentary constituencies with the highest levels of incapacity benefit, 94 or 95, perhaps even 96, of them would be represented by Labour Members. I make no wider point than that, except to say that it is a result of the historical footprint of deindustrialisation and the fact that so many people were abandoned for a period when they lost their jobs and were out of the labour market for a prolonged time. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, if someone is on incapacity benefit for one year, they will on average be on it for nine years.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West asked about the Atos Origin operation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who has responsibility for disability issues, regularly answers parliamentary questions about the operational nature of Atos Origin and its procedures and practices. With a customer's permission, the IB medical report may be made available to Members of Parliament and that is the right level of confidentiality.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West also asked about terminal illness. He had a novel way of avoiding your wrath, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by admitting that he was widening the terms of the debate and hoping to sneak the issue past you. I hope to sneak a response past you in the same way, although it is of course open to you to call me to order. I hope that I may offer some comfort to my hon. Friend and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr. Brown) who doggedly pursued the issue in Committee. I have given a commitment to talk to my hon. Friends in greater detail about this and it is our intention to fast track those with a terminal prognosis through the system so that they do not have to wait the 13-week assessment period. We also wish to find ways to pay the benefit much more quickly. We process claims for DLA in about a week and there is no reason why we cannot seek to achieve a similar turnaround for those with terminal illness in respect of ESA.
	At present a person who is claiming IB or IS on the grounds of incapacity for work and who does not meet the PCA threshold has the option of either claiming IS at a reduced rate, set at 80 per cent. of the usual personal allowance, or of claiming jobseeker's allowance while they are appealing against the PCA decision. That is because many customers believe that they will prejudice the appeal if they are seen to be claiming JSA, which has rather more onerous conditionality requirements than IB.
	For ESA, we have decided to simplify the system. Where a customer does not satisfy the PCA, but continues to provide medical advice that they should refrain from work, entitlement to ESA at the assessment phase rate will continue pending the outcome of the appeal. That is a unique feature of the decision making process for social security, as normally when a person is not entitled to benefit it ceases and would be reinstated only when an appeal tribunal rules in the customer's favour. Customers will be subject to ESA conditionality, not JSA conditionality, pending the outcome of the appeal. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend on his important amendment. Amendment No. 98 is therefore unnecessary and I hope that my hon. Friend will not seek to press it.
	Amendment No. 99, as has been suggested, goes much further than amendment No. 98 in that it seeks to treat people who have shown that they do not meet the criteria for limited capability for work-related activity as if they do so, solely because they are appealing against a decision that they do not. The effect would be to enable people in that position to receive a higher level of benefit and also not be subject to the normal conditionality regime simply because they have entered the appeals mechanism. I suspect that that is not the purpose behind the amendment and I again invite my hon. Friend not to press it.
	In conclusion, I have outlined the reasoning behind the technicalities of the Government amendments, and sought to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood about our intentions in respect of medical treatment. In addition, I hope that I have reassured my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, North-West about his specific and important concerns, and that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey accepts that there will be parliamentary scrutiny in the important period between 2008 and 2010. At the end of that period, the Government will table proposals to ensure that the right of independent and parliamentary scrutiny is further enshrined so that the effectiveness of the revised PCA, which is central to the introduction of the employment and support allowance, can continue to be assessed.

David Ruffley: I agree with the hon. Lady on many things, but I must disagree with her last observation. The purport of new clause 7 is to put in the Bill the very protection that she says is already in place. That protection is not in place. I will explain why I think that she is in error, although I will be happy to allow her to intervene, if she does not agree with what I say.
	In Committee, the Minister said that there were safeguards. He made it clear on more than one occasion that page 6 of the draft regulations with which he furnished the Committee referred to safeguards before a sanction was imposed. The problem that I have with that—the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) probably should also think that this is a problem—is that the text says:
	"The majority of safeguards are not set out in regulations".
	The safeguards are not set out in not only the Bill, but the regulations. The document continues to say that the safeguards
	"are in operational guidance to ensure that where necessary they can be adapted if evidence suggests that they are not effectively protecting people".
	Page 6 of the document to which the Minister referred many times upstairs says that the safeguards are not in the Bill, or even in regulations, but in operational guidance.
	When the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire made her intervention, she was probably referring to the assurances that were given in Committee about the way in which a volunteer from a support group could not be sanctioned. However, I am afraid that the Minister uncharacteristically missed the point in Committee when he said that in such circumstances it would be quite possible under the sanctioning regime for the sanction—the benefit docking—to be nil. However, that still is not good enough, because it implies that an individual from a support group who has volunteered falls under the sanctioning regime.
	The Minister also said that support group members who volunteered would have a right of appeal, which presupposes that they would be mired in the sanctioning regime. Such people would get rung up and would need to show good cause. They would have to go through all the rigmarole of arguing the toss about why, under the hypothetical example that I cited, they were not able to turn up for the full raft of work-focused interviews because their fluctuating condition meant that they were okay one week, but not so good in subsequent weeks, which was why they had not satisfied the requirements of the officials handling their case.

Gordon Marsden: I wish to speak in favour of amendment No. 116, which stands in my name and those of hon. Friends. In view of the remarks of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), with which, in general philosophical terms, I totally agree, it might seem perverse that I should move an amendment proposing a time gap between the medical assessment and the work-focused health-related assessment, but I do so for good reasons.
	First, I understand that the Government have been flexible and thoughtful in their approach to the subject. In Committee, the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire) said, in response to various concerns that were put to her, that the Government's preference was for the assessment to take place directly after the medical assessment, but that the Government were prepared to consider whether that was appropriate. Indeed, holding both assessments on the same day would be more efficient, and it would minimise the need for travel, among other things. Those are sensible and practical observations, but unfortunately they fly in the face of what many organisations involved in the subject believe, and they fly in the face, too, of the experiences that many of us have encountered in our advice surgeries.
	In that context, I pray in aid the strong reservations of Citizens Advice, which is, after all, a sort of second arm in respect of many of the issues that we come across in our constituency surgeries. Many of the problems that I deal with in Blackpool are referred to me from Citizens Advice, and vice versa. The briefing that it issued to Members says that feels that the separation of the timing of the medical assessments and the work-focused health-related assessment was vital because the two assessments have very different purposes. It goes on to say that in the former the claimant is trying to prove eligibility for the ESA in general, and in the latter assessing work a person could do with the right support is apparently intended only for those allocated to the employment-related activity component. Furthermore, decisions on which component of ESA a claimant qualifies for will not yet have been made, and there is a risk that some people who are later allocated to the support component will have needlessly undergone an additional assessment.
	Those points are strengthened by the briefings that Members received from the Disability Rights Commission policy manager and the policy group of the Disability Benefits Consortium, which expresses strong concern about the timing of the medical assessment and the work/health assessment:
	"Currently, it is envisaged that the latter will take place either immediately after, or very shortly after, the former. We believe that this is unworkable."
	It is incumbent on everyone, not least the Government, whom I praise for incorporating many of the groups' recommendations, to reflect further on those issues. We should consider the human factor, as people are concerned about putting themselves forward for interview, which is a big step for them. I am not a psychologist, but it is a moot point whether it is better to obey the old principle of getting university finals out of the way in a short period and have a double whammy under the proposals or give people breathing space.

Gordon Marsden: In his usual balanced and fair way, the hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the dilemma. Of course, that is a danger, but it is outweighed by the points that he made earlier.
	We must be mindful of the way in which people approach such things. The medical assessment and the work-focused health-related assessment are very different things in the minds of the people who undergo them. The first involves getting over a particular hurdle or being seen in a particular context, but the second is a much more refining process. The Disability Benefits Consortium says:
	"Asking people to make such a shift in their thinking will almost certainly lead to a high number of incorrect decisions and assessments being made."
	The two-week period to which amendment No. 116 refers was suggested by NACAB. It is not set in stone—it is an issue for discussion—but I urge the Government to reconsider the principle of separating those two interviews.
	Turning briefly to new clause 7 and amendment No. 87, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry), there were strong disagreements about the obligations on members of the support group. There is broader issue at stake, and it is captured better by the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend than by new clause 7. It is an issue not just for members of the support group but for people who have been on incapacity benefit for a long time and wish to participate in such a process. I am passionate about the matter, and I was naturally interested in the exchange about whose constituency had the most IB claimants. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) referred to seaside towns, and my Blackpool constituency has the 15th highest number of IB claimants. People scratch their heads and wonder why that should be the case, but in Blackpool many claimants with medical conditions imported their IB eligibility from former industrial areas. Many claimants in my constituency worked in the mining industry, and came to Blackpool in the 1980s and 1990s, so they have been on IB for 10 or 15 years.
	The philosophy of the Government's reforms is to give a sense of empowerment and openness to such people. I strongly urge the Minister to make more explicit in the Bill the fact that they should be given priority if they wish to opt in. They should not be excluded. I accept that if we wish to achieve quicker results that group will be more difficult to deal with, but it is important, not simply because of my constituents' personal circumstances but because a broader issue is at stake, that they should be kept in the frame.

Danny Alexander: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden), who is eloquent and well informed, as well as the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who continues to display the consensual mindset that characterised his deliberations in Committee.
	This is an important group of amendments. I support new clause 7, which makes explicit the importance of the support group having equal access to the support offered by pathways to work—a matter to which I shall return. Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, which I tabled with my hon. Friends, as well as amendments Nos. 57, 58 and 116 to some extent, reflect on the appropriateness of the conditionality regime and the way in which it should apply to work-focused health-related assessments. Amendment No. 3, which would delete clause 10, is a probing amendment, designed to elicit a wider debate about those assessments and the regime in which they operate. Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 relate to specific aspects of the clause and deal with concerns about timing, the conditionality regime and sanctions.
	As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, and as the Minister made clear in Committee, there is a justification for some form of work-focused health-related assessment, which tries to do something different. However, there are tricky issues, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, South suggested, such as the appropriate timing and format of those assessments. There are arguments on both sides. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South advanced an argument for a delay, which might be appropriate for some people, but I am more sympathetic to amendment No. 87, which gives discretion to claimants and imposes a requirement on the Department or the company operating on its behalf to consult claimants on the timing of the assessment. It is important to stress that that assessment tries to do something quite different from the assessment of limited capability for work and the assessment of limited capability for work-related activity. Both those assessments are about determining entitlement to benefit. Again, as hon. Members remarked, having two assessments might seem confusing, although the Minister reassured the Committee that the process would be seamless.
	None the less, a work-focused health-related assessment which is designed to be more positive and tries to understand what health interventions might be appropriate to help someone get back into work, and which immediately follows the two assessments dealing with entitlement to benefit may well cause the problems that have been described. Equally, for claimants in constituencies such as mine, where the nearest assessment centre might be 70 or 80 miles away from their home, requiring two journeys to that centre within a period of two weeks raises the problem identified by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.
	In that context, I return to an idea that I suggested in Committee—that in the longer term the Department should consider enabling more of a core assessment. At least part of the medical assessment process for incapacity benefit or employment support or allowance, as it will be, is similar to that which might be used for disability living allowance and for industrial injuries disablement benefit, for example.
	If it were possible to develop form sort of core assessment, that might offer claimants greater convenience, as opposed to what I have experienced in my constituency, when individuals are required to go to the same assessment centre three times in three weeks for similar but slightly different assessments for different benefits. That seems an unnecessarily burdensome system as it applies to some of the most vulnerable people in society, particularly those who may, in the end, qualify for the support group. I do not think a hard and fast two-week period is right. Empowering claimants to make a judgment for themselves about what would be most appropriate in the circumstances is a more sensible way forward.
	There is one outstanding issue that arose in Committee and has not been adequately addressed by Ministers in relation to work-focused health-related assessments—the technical but important matter of the timing of those assessments, and how that relates to the application of sanctions. If, for example, someone takes part in their assessment for limited capability for work-related activity and believes that they should be in the support group, but the assessment finds otherwise and on that basis they refuse to take part in the work-focused health-related assessment, my understanding of what the Minister told the Committee is that although the decision would not be made until it had gone to the decision maker to check that the process had been followed properly, in practice the sanction could be backdated.
	In principle, that person could be subject to sanctions for not taking part in the work-focused health-related assessment, which followed immediately from the assessment for limited capability for work-related activity, which followed immediately from the assessment for benefit entitlement, even though the decision about their entitlement to benefit had not at that time been taken. That is a technical but serious issue, which I hope the Minister will clarify.

Danny Alexander: I am grateful for that intervention. The Minister was not as clear as that in Committee. If he endorses those remarks in full, that will provide the reassurance that I seek and represent progress on our interchanges in Committee. Timing, decision making and sanctions, and how they apply are all important aspects of the work-focused health-related assessment that need to be resolved, as is the issue of appeals and how those apply.
	With reference to new clause 7, it is important that members of the support group are informed of their entitlement to take advantage of the support that is available through the pathways to work system. For reasons slightly different from those advanced by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, it is important that new clause 7 is supported. It makes it clear that people from the support group can volunteer to take part in the support group pathways to work, without thereby giving up their membership of the support group. It may be a technical point but it is an important clarification to make it clear to those people, as the Minister said, that there is no possibility of sanctions being imposed, even if they then choose to take part in work-related activity and so on.

Jim Murphy: I have pleasure in responding to this very productive and, on most occasions, constructive debate. Opposition Members have spoken from a sedentary position about angry exchanges during our conversation on this group of amendments. However, for the record and for the benefit of the many people who will read our debate, I do not think that anyone would describe this conversation as anything other than reasonable and relatively well informed. When it came to my intervention on the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), not only did I intervene but, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I intervened at some length to enable him to find his reference point in the Bill. That is far from an angry intervention or exchange. That is help and assistance to inform the debate.
	The nearest that we came to an angry exchange was when the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), again from a sedentary position, chuntered about the resources to enable the fulfilment of the provisions of the Bill. We have said repeatedly that we will fund the national roll-out of pathways using a similar model to the one that already exists across 40 per cent. of the country. It is a bit rich for those who voted against every penny of the money invested to enable that 40 per cent. roll-out of pathways now to say that it is not enough. Their argument at the time of the vote in the House was not that the funding was not enough; it was that they were against every single penny of the investment. That is a matter of public record in  Hansard and in the votes of the House.
	I agreed with the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds about our communications. He made an entirely fair point, as have others, about the nature of our communications with our customers, particularly those with a mental health illness or a learning disability. That is why we are finding ways to consult those with mental health illnesses and others about how we can improve our communications with those client groups. When we have an additional set of responsibilities, along with rights, it is important that we get the tone and content of our communications exactly right. The one proviso is that it is difficult to construct a legally based letter in gentle prose in every circumstance, so there will still be aspects of these communications that seem difficult or impenetrable to some people, but that is because it is necessary to set out certain legal responsibilities.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds has, throughout these proceedings, shown himself to be well informed, connected to the issues and phenomenally well briefed on the detail that he has brought to his observations in Committee and, thus far, today. Unusually, however, the main burden of his argument on clause 11(1)(b) is based on a misunderstanding of the Bill. There is a power to sanction only those on whom the requirement can be imposed, and because of clause 11(1)(b), that does not apply to members of a support group. There is no power to sanction anyone in the support group. That is explicit in the Bill, and it will be explicit in how the Act operates, and in how advisers and decision-makers, both in the public and private and voluntary sector, operate. I hope that that provides reassurance.
	Let me confirm to the House that, as I said in Committee, someone's well-intentioned desire and determination to volunteer would not change their entitlement to be in the support group; only a change in their medical circumstances or condition and a new PCA would do that.

Jeremy Hunt: It is a pleasure and privilege to follow the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry), who is extremely well known for his commitment to dealing with disability issues. I am sorry that listening to one of my speeches is no longer like winning the pools, as it might have been 12 years ago. I believe that there is indeed considerable understanding of the social model of disability in the Conservative party.
	As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, his amendments are intended to promote the social as opposed to the medical model of disability. Some hon. Members might be tempted to think that this is all a matter of semantics, but if they did, they would be greatly mistaken. The social model is essentially a recognition that, if we are to move towards including disabled people in the mainstream of society, we have to move beyond seeing disability as a purely medical condition. We must also accept the importance of removing the barriers faced by disabled people in society at large—whether they be practical barriers, such as problems with physical access to buildings or public transport, or psychological barriers caused by the attitudes and prejudices of others.
	One of the disappointments of the Bill is that it says nothing about the responsibilities of the wider community to help disabled people achieve engagement in the world of work. There is plenty of talk about what might be called the supply side of the problem—that is, about getting people ready for work—but very little about the demand side of ensuring that opportunities are not stifled by outdated or prejudiced attitudes among employers or society at large. That is where the social model is very important.
	In Committee, we had substantial discussions about the appropriate use of language. A number of amendments suggested using the phrase "labour market disadvantage" instead of "limited capability for work" at the beginning of the process. The Minister rejected that option, and he may be tempted to use the same arguments again today, but today's amendments are nothing like as strong, as they would simply replace the words "medical examination" with the word "assessment". Omitting the word "medical" would not mean that no medical examination would take place, but it would make it possible for the medical examination currently planned to be expanded to cover a wider remit, as and when the Government consider that to be appropriate. The Minister may argue, as he did in Committee, that it is vital that the tests are objective. My response is that that objectivity is not confined to medical tests: when a person faces a barrier to employment that is linked to a disability, can that not also be looked at objectively?
	Conservative Members accept that an objective assessment of a person's impairment must be the starting point. That means, at a bare minimum, that the phrase "medical examination" in clauses 8 and 9 should be changed to "health and disability examination". The phrase "medical examination" strongly suggests an examination of a person's health, but it is clear from the PCA, the regulations and the 48 descriptors used to assess a person's limited capability for work-related activity that the medical examination will look at issues to do with that person's health and disability.
	The amendments would remove the language problem. Removing the word "medical" and calling the process an "assessment" would allow the process to be defined much more broadly. It would also allow it to be defined nationally and consistently. The Minister made clear in Committee his legitimate concern that widening the assessment to take account of other, non-health related factors would be unworkable in practice, but I repeat that the amendments would not commit the Government to widening the scope of the assessment in a specific way that would make it unworkable. They would merely change the language used to allow for a possible widening of the scope of the assessment at a later stage.
	If the Government accepted the proposals, they would be signalling that they really understand that achieving the Bill's objectives involves tackling the wider barriers that disabled people face, as well their individual impairments. Therefore, I hope that the Government will give the amendments careful consideration.

Danny Alexander: I shall be very brief, as I know that the Minister wants to respond to the debate. The amendments so eloquently explained by the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) touch the conceptual basis of the Bill, and are profoundly important. He was right to say that all parties subscribe, to a greater or lesser degree, to the social model of disability. They agree that a disability is not merely a health condition or impairment, but has to do with the barriers that society puts in the way of people who are disabled. It is important that the Bill reflects that conceptual agreement, and the amendments draw attention to the language that is used in the Bill.
	The hon. Member for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt) said that we debated amendments in Committee that would have used the term "labour market disadvantage" in relation to disability or impairment. I believe that that would capture much more accurately what the assessment procedure would determine, and today's amendments would allow the same thing to happen. They would not in every case lead to huge changes in how the assessment process works—although they might do so in respect of the work-focused health-related assessment—but they would send the clear signal that the Bill makes real the Government's acceptance of the reality of the social model of disability. For that reason, I commend the amendments to the House.

Charles Walker: I am sorry that I was not present for the whole debate, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) on these amendments.
	I believe that the vast majority of people not currently in the labour force want to work. I have been a Member of Parliament for 18 months, and most of the people with disabilities that I have met in that time have been desperate to re-enter the work force. I understand the arguments underpinning the amendments—that the words "medical assessment" attach a pejorative meaning to a condition that many people have come to terms with.
	People with serious disabilities try to overcome them, and very often succeed—to the extent that when one meets them on the street and asks how they are they respond by saying that they are feeling extremely well. They say that because they have moved on from their disability, and that is why the hon. Member for Kingswood is right to say that the word "assessment" is much to be preferred.
	With this Bill, we are trying to help people re-enter the labour market. We are not burdening them with a medical condition, but are trying to find a route that eases them back into work. We are also trying to put in place the support systems that allow them to re-enter the labour force with the mechanisms that they need to be productive and have successful and fulfilling careers.
	Many of the people whom I have met feel excluded from the labour market because they believe that there is a lack of understanding of, or concern about, what they need to make the transition back into work. I know that my party supports these amendments, so my support for them will not upset anyone. People with disabilities face the stigma that they have a medical condition. If the amendments get rid of that, that is another excellent reason to support them.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman; he was not called during the time allotted by the programme motion, so I must now put the question. If the House so wishes, it can be negatived.
	 Question, That the amendment be made,  put and negatived.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker  then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Danny Alexander: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who has rightly stated the strong case in principle for the change that he proposes. In Committee, I moved an amendment similar to amendment No. 5, which is on the amendment paper today. It goes a little further than his amendment in that it proposes the abolition of the shared room rate altogether. I do not know yet whether he intends to press his amendment to a Division. If he does not, may I indicate at this stage, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I intend to divide on amendment No. 5, if that is in order?
	The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) have shown a degree of consistency with their party's position. When the single room rent was introduced in 1996, it was opposed fully by the then Labour Opposition. The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions all went through the Division Lobby to vote against the introduction of the single room rent. They were right to do so and we would be right either to ameliorate the impact of the single room rent on young people or to get rid of it altogether. The statistics that some of the lobbying groups have presented show that 87 per cent. of all claimants who are currently in receipt of the shared room rate face a shortfall between what they receive in housing benefits and what they pay in rent. That shortfall averages out at £35.14 a week.
	As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there is a shortage of accommodation that satisfactorily meets the SRR available to under-25s. The point was made about YMCAs. Charities working with young homeless people report that they are often unable to move those young people on to appropriate accommodation after they have, for example, spent time in a hostel. That is because of the impact on affordability of the shared room rate for young people who seek to move on from those circumstances and to take responsibility. Taking responsibility is part of the principle that the Government seek to develop behind the local housing allowance. However, the current system of a shared room rate militates against young people taking responsibility for themselves, finding their own accommodation and getting the support that they need to do so. The shared room rate can be a real disincentive for young people when it comes to leaving supported accommodation, because they know that they will face a shortfall. Indeed, the YMCA reports that 35 per cent. of young people in YMCA accommodation are ready to move on, but are unable to find anything that they can possibly afford to rent.
	Affordability is not the only barrier. As the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there is substantial evidence that landlords are more unwilling to let to under-25s who are on benefits. With his amendment, that unwillingness would at least be reduced, but it would still apply to under-21s. According to Shelter, although 46 per cent. of one-bedroom properties were affordable to those entitled to the one-bedroom rate—in other words, over-25s entitled to the one-bedroom rate—only 26 per cent. of the properties matching the shared room rate definition were available at or below the shared room rate. I can give a local example that may help to illustrate that. In Sutherland and Easter Ross in the Highlands, the shared room rate is set at £35 a week. I know that to Members who represent urban constituencies that might seem very low. In that part of the world, only one landlord provides accommodation matching the shared room rate definition—£95 a week. Any young person under 25 in that part of the world, on benefits and looking to rent accommodation, faces a shortfall of £60 a week.
	Since we debated the matter in Committee—I know that the Minister made her response then—there has been further evidence from the Department for Work and Pensions that helps to support the case that is being made in the amendments. Recent evidence indicates that landlords are becoming increasingly reluctant to let properties as houses in multiple occupancy and that they are reluctant to let at all to housing benefit—or local housing allowance, as it will be—claimants. There is often—this comes through from, for example, research that Shelter has been doing—increased competition for rooms in shared accommodation. That competition comes not only from students and professionals, as was mentioned in an intervention, but from migrant workers. That is a relevant point for consideration in terms of the effect on rents and supply. That phenomenon has been reported by Shelter.
	The pressure and the competition faced by young people who are entitled to only the shared room rate is getting worse, not better. That competitive pressure will mean that the shortfalls that those young people face will become more dramatic and the consequences of those shortfalls for those young people, in terms of debt, hardship, eviction and having to go into supported accommodation, will all become more severe.
	In a sense, I will close on the same point that the hon. Gentleman closed on. He quite rightly referred to incentives to work. Incentives to work are really the whole thrust of a large part of the Bill. However, this is one area where, for some reason, the Government seem unwilling to embrace a suggestion that, as he said, could be delivered relatively cheaply. I did not necessarily like the way in which the figure got inflated in a matter of seconds. None the less, in the context of the overall Bill, the proposal is relatively cheap. Even complete abolition of the single room rent has been costed at £20 million, in ministerial answers. Even taking into account behavioural consequences, the cost would still be relatively low. However, the impact on work incentives for young people can often be dramatic.
	Those of us who attended a briefing session held on the issue by Shelter, the YMCA and other organisations involved in the coalition campaigning against the situation, heard directly from some young people who had been living in supported accommodation about the impact that the situation can have on their ability to find a job. Earlier, we discussed the importance of the fact that many of the people we are talking about want to work and just need assistance to do so. For no group is that more true than the young people addressed by amendment No. 48. However, the problems of having no fixed address, building up debt problems and being unable to afford rent all represent substantial disincentives to work. If for no other reason than to address that situation, which would be consistent with the Government's thinking on welfare reform, I urge the Minister to reconsider the position that she took in Committee and to endorse amendment No. 48.

Terry Rooney: Sadly, my hon. Friend's experience is all too common in all too many parts of the country. I understand that there are some good rent officers. I am yet to find one, but I am told that they do exist.
	The simple fact of the matter is that this system affects millions of people's lives. It affects the amount of housing benefit or local housing allowance that people can get. Rent officers operate under a regime of secrecy, unaccountability and serious inconsistency, as my hon. Friend said, and there can be no challenge to the decisions at which they arrive. Amendment No. 70 would bring transparency to the system. It would require a rent officer to publish the data and evidence on which his calculations were based. It would also allow the Secretary of State to make directions about how that evidence should be collected, assessed and used. In this day and age, to have a public official with such incredible powers, yet subject to no public scrutiny at all, is just plain wrong. I accept that the amendment might not be perfectly worded, although I think that it is pretty good, and I look forward to hearing the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister.
	Amendment No. 67 addresses the antisocial behaviour aspects of the Bill that relate to sanctions on housing benefit. I have to say first—I have made this point several times in the past and although no one has listened, I hope to carry the day—that it is plain wrong and a massive injustice that there is a sanctions regime that applies to only one type of tenure in the housing market. As everybody knows, on virtually every housing estate in the country, two thirds of the old local authority stock has been sold. If two neighbours are found guilty of the same antisocial behaviour, but one is an owner-occupier, and the other is a tenant, the tenant could lose his home and 100 per cent. of his housing benefit for up to five years, but there would be no sanction whatever against the owner-occupier, and that is not right.
	I accept that the proposals in the Bill are to be piloted—God help the 10 pilot areas—but a serious rethink of the principles underlying the measure is needed. I utterly opposed the proposals in 2003, and the Government saw sense and withdrew them. I accept that the proposals have been revised and refined, but they are still simply wrong. I remind hon. Members that if a person's behaviour does not change in the first four weeks after the original possession order, there is a 10 per cent. reduction in housing benefit. Between five and eight weeks after the order, there is a 20 per cent. reduction, and after that, for up to five years, there is a 100 per cent. reduction. The person gets nothing. Of course, if the housing benefit officer thinks that that will cause hardship, the 100 per cent. rate can be reduced, but it is evident that it will cause hardship. If someone is on income support and is entitled to 100 per cent. housing benefit, but instead they get nothing, they will obviously be in hardship.
	That is not to undermine in any way the serious implications of antisocial behaviour. We have all seen, experienced, and had to deal with it, and most of us welcome the legislative action that the Government have taken. However, let us be fair: there is a personal responsibility on the individual who causes the antisocial behaviour, whether they be a householder, a parent, or an older teenager, but there is a responsibility on the state, too. If we reach the stage at which a family has been evicted for antisocial behaviour, the mechanisms that we have put in place, and the state, have failed in dealing with the family and its problems; we need to recognise that. The 100 per cent. reduction in housing benefit for five years is an abuse of human rights. The amendment, which possibly does not go far enough, would limit the 100 per cent. reduction to 12 months. I hope that we will hear co-operative words from the Minister on that amendment.
	I now turn to the amendment on the single room rate, which was so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love). I understand, but I do not agree with, the philosophy behind the single room rate, which is that it is not right that someone can leave school at 18 and go straight on to benefits and enjoy a lifestyle that is not available to people who are in a similar situation, but are in work. However, the reality is that most people to whom the single room rate or the shared room rate applies are not in that category. Most of them have, at some time, been in care. I know that people under 21 are excluded if they have been in care, but when they are 21 and one day, the regime applies. All the evidence about people who have been in care shows that they remain vulnerable long after they turn 21.
	A large number of the people affected have disabilities. Severely disabled people are exempt from the single room rate, but disabled people are not, but where do we draw the line between disabled and severely disabled? People make those decisions every day, and they affect people's lives. People who have been in drug, alcohol or substance abuse programmes and ex-offenders are affected, too. Those two groups—people who come out of prison, and people who have been through detoxification programmes—were, under one part of the social security system, given the community care grant, because we recognise that they are in a difficult situation. They need resettling in society and they need help to get over their problems. Under another part of the system, however, we tell them that they will have restricted housing benefit, which means that they can only live in accommodation that is at the allowance rate that has been set, but in most places, that is not available.
	In addition, people who have been in care until the age of 21 are exempt, but most local authorities do not make that information available when someone makes a claim. It is almost by accident that they discover that they are exempt. Similarly, local authorities do not state in the information that they issue that severely disabled people are exempt. If someone forgets to state on their claim form that they receive higher-rate disability living allowance, they are overlooked and they receive the single room rate. Too many of those things are subject to individual judgment. Some authorities attempt to deal with the problem by making discretionary hardship payments, but many authorities do not spend anything on such payments. Some of them publicise the payment, but others do not do so. Once again, there are different attitudes in different parts of the country.

Jeremy Hunt: This important set of amendments deals with the serious problem of access to housing for young people under 25. The facts have been comprehensively set before the House by the hon. Members for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney), for Edmonton (Mr. Love), and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander).
	At the heart of the problem is the fact that the number of claimants of single room rent has fallen from 31,600 in 1997 to 11,900 in 2005. Evidence from Shelter, the YMCA and many other organisations suggests that is not because young people have experienced a sudden surge in employment opportunities and earnings. On the contrary, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey said, 35 per cent. of the young people using YMCA accommodation would like to move into their own accommodation but cannot afford to do so. The British Property Federation says that
	"many of our members are reluctant to let to under-25s because of the inadequacy of their Housing Benefit payments to meet the rent required."
	As a result, there is a significant reduction in the supply of affordable accommodation for young people, particularly houses in multiple occupation.
	This is not simply about the level of housing benefit. The increased burden of regulation which, for example, requires landlords to place basins in every single bedroom, has had an impact, too.
	The amendment follows the terms of similar amendments that we debated in Committee. There is an important distinction between principle and practice. Is the problem one of principle, whereby people under the age of 25 should not be required to accept a lower level of housing benefit than other people, or is it one of practice, whereby the level of the single room rate under current regulations, or the shared room rate under the Bill, has not been set at a level that adequately reflects local housing market conditions?
	It is worth looking at what happened in the pilot areas for the local housing allowance. The Department for Work and Pensions report refers to the rent officers, to whom the hon. Member for Bradford, North drew attention. It states that
	"rent officers in some areas"
	of the pilot
	"were facing particular difficulty in gathering evidence in order to set the shared room rate . . . this could mean that as a result the rate is a less reliable reflection of the market, thus compounding claimants' problems".
	There were clear problems in the pilot in setting the right level of the shared room rate, which may be due partly to the highly complicated nature of what the shared room rate has become. The Minister told the Committee that it should be assessed as the rate payable for a room with shared use of either a living room, bathroom, toilet or kitchen.

Anne McGuire: As I said in Committee, I am pleased that we have had the opportunity to discuss issues relating to the single room rate, because I know that it causes great anxiety for many colleagues, particularly many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope that over the next few minutes, I will be able to give some comfort to my colleagues and assure them that they can have confidence in what we are attempting to do with the local housing allowance under the new system.
	For the record, Government amendment No. 12 is a technical amendment which modifies clause 35 to meet the information sharing principles of Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs, once the transfer of the rent officers has taken place in 2009.
	The debate has been wide ranging, and some of the issues raised are of general concern and not specific to the single room rate. The debate has had added value because of that. I emphasise that we are moving to a local housing allowance partly to get rid of the problem highlighted by my hon. Friends the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) and for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones)—the anathema of "No DHSS customers" in the private rented sector. What we are doing generally in relation to the local housing allowance, and specifically in relation to young people under the age of 25, is giving people the authority to pay their own rent by having the money given to them as individuals instead of through an intermediary through a housing benefit office, which initially stigmatises them as housing benefit recipients. I hope that that general principle will be accepted.

David Ruffley: The Bill has noble aims: to get 1 million of our fellow citizens off incapacity benefit. That is achievable, because all the Government's surveys, which we accept, suggest that at least 1 million of the 2.7 million incapacity benefit claimants want to work. That is important in itself, but so, too, is the change of focus in the Bill. The Government are to be congratulated on that. For the first time there is a focus on capability, not just disability. That received cross-party consensus in Committee and in our proceedings today. Long may it continue. There is no "but" coming, so the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform should not be nervous.
	When the Bill was published, it was described as a flagship Bill—rightly so, for the reasons to which I have just alluded. However, the idea that this is the only major Bill on the subject in this Parliament should not lead us to the conclusion that we have cracked the problem. I know that Ministers would not suggest that for a moment.
	The Bill is a start, but only a start. More needs to be done—not just for those on incapacity benefit, but for lone parents, who may have no incapacity issues, and for older workers. Indeed, a year ago in the Green Paper, the Secretary of State referred to those two groups as parts of the work force who need more assistance. More must also be done for the long-term employed.
	The Bill is only part of the solution. On the Conservative Benches, we know that we have to do more policy thinking. The social justice policy group and its "Breakdown Britain" analysis is part of the work that we shall be doing in future, but Ministers, too, will be doing more. Last month, the Secretary of State announced a new and important review to consider what more could be done in the sphere of welfare reform. The Minister will lead that review.
	Although the Bill is only part of the story, it received serious scrutiny in Committee. In my nine years serving on Committees, this Bill's Committee proceedings have been by far the most collegiate across the party divide. It was good natured and well informed—I shall not refer to the other Bill Committees of which I was a member, as comparisons might be invidious.
	In Committee, the nuts and bolts of the Bill were taken apart and put back together. Ministers answered our queries, as well as those of other Opposition politicians and, on occasion, of Labour Back Benchers, with skill and expertise. Everyone on the Committee had one goal in common: to make sure that we have welfare that works on the ground, not just on paper.
	I would briefly like to thank my team: my hon. Friends the Members for South-West Surrey (Mr. Hunt), for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) and last but certainly not least my indefatigable and indispensable hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) whose wisdom, cleverness and civilised values shone through the Committee proceedings—and will continue to do so. He was a huge help to me and my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey in making our maiden appearances on the Front Bench.
	I would also like to talk about the Government's team in all their manifestations and not just the Ministers to whom I have referred. Powerful, wise and intelligent contributions were made, in particular by the hon. Members for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford), for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) and for Glasgow, North-West (John Robertson). I also wish to thank the Clerks who refereed the proceedings with their usual peerless charm and assurance.
	During the course of the Committee and the proceedings today, clarifications and assurances have been sought and, in large part in many instances, have been given by Ministers to clarify things that were not in the Bill or had been alluded to in the explanatory notes. Much of what has been said in Committee and today will, I know, be very important for the outside groups that have done so much to inform the debate and to brief and to help Opposition Members such as myself. It will probably also mean—and I am sure that the Minister will welcome the observation—more work for us. What he and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), have said on the record will provoke more thoughts and more queries, so perhaps our work begins after the debate today. It will continue.
	I want to say something about the number of regulations that will be issued pursuant to the Bill. The Minister did the Committee a great service by giving it as many of the draft regulations as he could, but that cannot get round the facts that the regulations needs a lot more work and that we have not seen some at all. When they are brought back to the House, many outside groups will furiously brief Opposition Members and we will have more work to do. There is a more limited ability for us to have full debates on some of the important regulations, but I know from the assurances that the Minister has given that he will work hard with his hard-working officials to make sure that every "i" is dotted and every "t" crossed.
	I wish to reflect on some of the key issues on which comfort has been given to outside groups. The new PCA is absolutely central to the effective operation of the new regime that the Bill will usher forth. Five dozen dummy runs of the three assessments that are outlined in clauses 8, 9 and 10 have led to a few raised eyebrows outside this place, but the Minister has assured us that they will be looked at carefully to see how the potentially complex interaction between three assessments in one day for one individual in the same place in the same room by the same assessor will operate in practice. He has undertaken to look carefully to ensure that customers will not be disadvantaged in future dummy runs and further work. In particular, we flagged up the problem that a claimant or customer might have to show potentially conflicting things at the same time. The first is his or her level of capability or level of functionality and the second is their level of unwellness. We flagged up the point that that might introduce a conflict of interest. On the face of it, that appears to be a problem, but the Minister has said that he will keep an eagle eye on it.
	The hon. Member for Kingswood (Roger Berry) called for consideration to be given to the desirability of an independent analysis and evaluation of the operation of the new PCA. I hope that the Minister understands that lots of outside groups—not just Opposition politicians—will want to see evidence-based material on how that is working. If that crucially reformed gateway is not got right, the whole system could be thrown into doubt. Customers would not have confidence in the new assessments, which could lead to more appeals. That would not be in the interests of anyone—the Government or the customer.
	We also had an important debate on employers' attitudes. We all understand that the rights and responsibilities agenda requires customers to do what they can to put themselves in a situation that means that they can be work-ready. As we said, 1 million of the 2.7 million people want to be work-ready, with the right assistance. The Bill will help many of them. However, that is the supply side of the equation. The demand side of the equation is that employers have to be more willing to consider recruiting those with an incapacity or disability. That was a point of agreement on both sides of the Committee and the House.
	Anti-stigma campaigns are important. Some 40 per cent. of incapacity claimants have a mental or behavioural condition that leads to their claim being accepted. We know how far employers discriminate against those with mental health conditions and fluctuating conditions. We also know that the issue of talk therapy and better interventions for those with mental health conditions is a top priority—not only for the Opposition and outside groups, but for the Government.
	Some important things were said on both sides of the House about the support group. We had a long and fruitful discussion today. I will not repeat it. Needless to say, those in the support group—the most vulnerable claimants under the new regime—must have the right to volunteer for work-related activities, sure in the knowledge that there will be no sanctions and that resources and every possible assistance will be given to make sure that they get the best possible chance of getting back into the world of work.
	In Committee, we also talked about contracting out. There was widespread agreement that the new contracts must be designed in a way that avoids cherry-picking, so that those who are the most easy to help are not the only people or the first people to be helped by private and voluntary sector contractors. We were also clear that, whether we are talking about incapacity benefit personal advisers at jobcentres or the employees of private and voluntary sector contractors, they must be absolutely up to speed on understanding the needs of the customers and clients. We must consider whether they have enough training in mental health conditions and difficult-to-meet-needs customers, such as those with autism and severe learning disabilities.
	In the course of the Bill's proceedings, we did not have the opportunity to say enough on the earnings disregard and the thorny but hugely important issue of permitted work. How much work can an individual incapacity benefit claimant—soon to be employment and support allowance claimant—do without jeopardising the full value of their benefit package? That is something for another day, I hope, and perhaps for another Bill.
	Finally, there is housing benefit, in part 2 of the Bill. In a series of reassuring contributions, the Under-Secretary was able to give comfort about the sanctions that will be applied in relation to housing benefit for those antisocial individuals who have been evicted by virtue of their antisocial behaviour. They then become subject to HB sanctioning. She showed a real sensitivity to what many outside groups were saying about the sanctions—their comments were reflected by my hon. Friends. Such sanctions should be used exceedingly sparingly, if at all. We must always have any impact on child poverty at the front of our minds. I know that the Under-Secretary does not need lecturing on that. She has been reassuring and I know that her words will be read closely and with care by outside groups and hon. Members.
	There has been much common ground among the political parties on the Bill, but we have not agreed about everything. A lot has been done, but there is a lot more to do. In that spirit, Conservative Members are content to support the Bill on Third Reading.

Terry Rooney: Congratulations are due, especially to the Secretary of State, who walked into a quagmire about 15 months ago when a Green Paper had been several months in germination, but showed no signs of appearing. He injected much-needed realism into the process and there was genuine consultation with not only Back Benchers and Opposition spokesmen, but numerous groups outside the House. The subsequent Green Paper and the Bill were far better for that; perhaps the process is a model that other Secretaries of State should follow.
	The Work and Pensions Committee has taken a great interest in the whole process. We followed closely the pathways to work pilots, especially their impact in terms of mental health. As politicians, we are still learning what that really means. The process has meant that we now have a far better system—it is revolutionary—to allow the representative bodies to design the new personal capability assessment. Such a thing might not happen again, but the process has certainly been an interesting experience.
	We need to remember why we are where we are. There is a core of people who have been on incapacity benefit for all sorts of reasons—we do not need to go into the politics of that—for far too long. Sadly, people who are disabled are going to be in poverty. If people have a disabled child in their family, they are going to suffer poverty. Disabled parents with a disabled child will be in even greater poverty. We must address the situation. There was a time when pensioners were almost automatically in poverty, but that is no longer the case. We must get to a point at which that is no longer the case for people with disabilities. A disability is not a reason or excuse for someone to be in poverty.
	Much as the Bill promotes work as an option and is designed to facilitate people moving into work, we must never forget the need for people with disabilities to be retained in work. Quite frankly, the attitude of employers in this country is still a massive problem. It is two years since the strategy unit produced a report on improving the life chances for disabled people, which cited the need for Government Departments, especially the Department of Trade and Industry, to do more work. There has not been anywhere near enough action over the past two years. As I have said many times, discrimination on the grounds of gender or race is almost always malicious, while discrimination on the grounds of disability is almost always due to ignorance. We need an education programme for employers and all parts of the Government need to engage in that; the opportunity to work is the civil right of everyone in society. The Government need to take the action necessary to ensure that those less fortunate than ourselves can have that opportunity.
	We need to find out how the cities strategy will work. The initiative is exciting, but we need to find out how much flexibility we can lend to it. The impact of Leitch gives rise to an enormous agenda.
	The Government should be congratulated on their foresight and courage in introducing the Bill. I do not want to embarrass anyone, but never has the disability lobby had as doughty a champion as the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire). There might have been someone as good, but there has been no one better. I do not want to deny her any prospects of promotion, but as long as she is in her post, we are in good hands.
	The Select Committee will be keeping a watching eye on the situation. All its members have a great interest in the matter and we want the system to work. There will undoubtedly be teething problems, but given the flexibility in the Bill, I hope they can be dealt with speedily.

Roger Berry: Given the limited time, I shall make two brief comments. First, my hon. Friend the Minister is correct that the Bill is about the right to work and the need to tackle poverty. Some 40 per cent. of children with a disabled parent live in poverty, and 48 per cent. of disabled people are out of work. The challenge is enormous. It is easy for Back Benchers who do not deal with the issue daily to forget the scale of the problem and the importance of this policy area. The Bill highlights the Government's enormous progress in dealing with child poverty, but child poverty targets will not be met unless opportunities do not improve for children in families in which there is at least one disabled person. The size of the task cannot be under-estimated.
	Secondly, I very much agree with the hon. Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) and for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) about the importance of the demand side. I am tempted to be blunt, now that we all agree about the need for the measure. The Department for Work and Pensions has worked its socks off to deal with the supply side. We all have criticisms of the Bill, and we can all claim to do better, but it has worked its socks off to produce a package that empowers people into work. I am thrilled by the progress that has been made in recent years, but if we are to create 1 million jobs, private, voluntary, and public sector employers must be prepared to employ 1 million more people.
	I wish that I saw in employers and the Department of Trade and Industry the same commitment to address the problem that I saw in the Department for Work and Pensions. I have engaged in private correspondence with Ministers in the DTI, and I have checked its website and disability equality statement. I have checked what Business Link, the small business sector and the CBI say about such issues and, frankly, it is not a great deal. More significantly, in meeting after meeting with organisations such as the Shaw Trust and bodies that know about the delivery of employment-focused support for disabled people, I hear what ministerial colleagues hear—the employers' contribution must be stepped up. Disabled people have an obligation to take advantage of available opportunities, but there are equally important—arguably more important—obligations on employers to deliver on the demand side. Much more work must be done on the problem, and I look forward to even more joined-up government. I would hate all the good work by the Department for Work and Pensions to be undermined by employers, both collectively and individually, not getting into gear fast enough.